> but when it comes to the hard stuff they still suck.
Also much of the really annoying, time consuming stuff, like frontend code. Writing UIs is not rocket science, but hard in a bad way and LLMs are not helping much there.
Plus, while they are _very_ good at finding common issues and gotchas quickly that are documented online (say you use some kind of library that you're not familiar with in a slightly wrong way, or you have a version conflict that causes an issue), they are near useless when debugging slightly deeper issues and just waste a ton of time.
Some people do to a degree. Just not quite in the sense that this headline suggests.
There are now approaches were the prompt itself is being structured in a way (sort of like a spec) so you get to a similar result quicker. Not sure how well those work (I actually assume they suck, but I have not tried them).
Also some frameworks, templates and so on, provide a bunch of structured markdown files that nudges LLM assistance to avoid common issues and do things in a certain way.
But there is functional equivalence. While I don't want to downplay the importance of performance, we're talking about something categorically different when comparing LLMs to compilers.
Not when those LLMs are tied to agents, replacing what would be classical programming.
Using low code platforms with AI based automations, like most iPaaS are now doing.
If the agent is able to retrieve the required data from a JSON file, fill an email with the proper subject and body, sending it to another SaaS application, it is one less integration middleware that was required to be written.
For all practical business point of view it is an application.
You're missing one important feedback loop in this system: That debt is subsidized by foreign institutions, which have been slowly pulling out as they recognize that the US has been consistently consuming beyond their means. Also almost every continent has been working on circumventing the USD as the primary exchange currency in some way or another.
This is reflected in the USD losing value at a higher pace, which means the debt cycle becomes unsustainable.
Hopefully it will gradually managed, but that requires a large amount of political will, tax hikes and budget cuts. Very hard to do fairly and different people have extremely conflicting views on who should get poorer, because that's exactly what cuts and hikes mean.
The current admin is trying to brute force a change, where they keep their cake and eat it too, but they are eroding international trust which just accelerates the issue.
Passive, (especially global) index funds doing so well and outperforming the vast majority of actively managed, general funds () is not a given, but they point to a different problem.
It means that most actively managed funds are still overpriced (fees), don't deliver efficient price discovery, and in some cases destabilize the market by making consistently wrong bets.
That's not the fault of index funds. In fact they make it easier for high performing investors who have deeper insights.
There are plenty of funds that don't compete on just on beating the index, but have other goals.
They also reported tiny profits that are just slightly above what they get in as subsidies. P/E compared to other similar companies is also through the roof.
Yes, that's very often the case with things that would very likely be shared if it looked good.
There are things that don't get shared out of principle. For example there are anonymous votes or behind the scenes negotiations without commitment or security critical data.
But given that Musk tends to parade around vague promises since a very long time, it seems sharing data that looks very good would certainly be something they would do.
reply